Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors C Hudson, J Kirk and D Tyler.

To approve the minutes from the Corporate Performance Panel held on 1 September 2021.

The minutes of the Corporate Performance Panel held on 1 September 2021 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the Member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

These declarations apply to all Members present, whether the Member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local Member on any item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chairman proposed to accept as urgent under Section 100(b)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business.

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the Chair of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard before a decision is taken.

Councillor P Beal was present under Standing Order 34 for Item 8.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Chair reported that he had been contacted at the end of last week and the weekend regarding a planning sifting issue and explained that what had transpired was the Parish Council had  requested a Borough Councillor call in the planning application.  However for whatever reason the application did not get called in and although PC had given a number of material planning reasons.  The sifting panel had determined that the application be determined under delegated authority.  The Chair added that this presented a problem as under the current system the Parish Council did not know if the Borough Councillor or the system stopped the call in going forward as they were not aware of items to be considered before sifting panel until after the sifting meeting had taken place.

The Chair stated that he thought it be useful if Members discussed the item today in case the Panel wished to put a recommendation to Cabinet and that Councillor Blunt, Portfolio Holder was present to give his thoughts.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Blunt addressed the Panel and expressed his disappointment that this had happened.  Councillor Blunt commented that there were two separate issues – the sifting process and the call-in process and that he would like some time to discuss the issues with the planning officers and the sifting panel to look at the processes.

Councillor Blunt undertook to discuss the issues raised with the planning officers to enable the processes were visible and clear and invited Members to forward any suggestions.

Councillor Devereux commented that recently he had experienced the issues outlined within his own parish and added that there appeared to be a visibility issue and that a protocol might help.

Councillor Joyce outlined the issues regarding significant changes to applications that Councillors had called in and then determined under delegated powers.  Councillor Joyce asked for the following in regard to significant changes be recorded in the minutes:

“Councillor Blunt said in response to my question on significant changes (and the definition), restarting the planning process again when there was a significant change in the planning application.”

Councillor Morley  asked  if permitted development rights applications could be called in.

In response to the comments made by the Panel, Councillor Blunt advised that issues raised would be taken on board when he undertook the review of both the call in and sifting panel processes.

In conclusion, the Chair thanked Councillor Blunt for attending the meeting today and that the Panel  accepted his offer.  When the Panel discussed discuss the agenda item on planning sifting it might be broadened to consider other planning matters.

There were no call-ins.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

In presenting the report, the Waste and Recycling Manager explained that a Councillor had requested a report addressing the points raised as they related to the work of the Panel with specific reference to waste related matters on the Promenade at Hunstanton.

The Waste and Recycling Manager outlined the key issues and options considered as set out in the report.

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that the report set out terms and conditions imposed upon the Borough Council’s business tenants for kiosk operations.  The Panel was informed that there were problems with policing some issues and highlighted that it was not possible to staff in place all day just in case one of the tenants did not comply with the conditions set out in their lease.

The Waste and Recycling Manager responded to questions from the Panel in relation to:

·         The Borough Council’s duty of care.

·         Steps taken and could be taken by the Borough Council to address the actions such as people placing waste where it should not be on Borough Council owned land.

·         Borough Council’s Enforcement Policy and actions which could be taken to address any breach identified and evidenced.

In response to questions from the Chair on cigarette butts and a collaborative forum with other groups, the Waste and Recycling Manager explained that there was always discussions in various county groups who worked together, discussed such issues and a potential solution.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor P Beal addressed the Panel and outlined the issues which had been ongoing for 3 years and highlighted the large percentage of water waste going down the drain, all pumping cleaning chemicals into the drain which directly went into the sea.  Councillor Beal drew attention to page 35 – litter and that he as Ward Councillor had raised concern.  Councillor Beal referred to photographs he had taken identifying issues relating to waste and added that managing these issues was difficult but that there was an easy cure, a bin was required for waste which could be collected twice weekly by the trade lorries and a bowser installed to deal with water waste.

Councillor Beal asked who currently paid the water rates on the kiosks.  In response, the Assistant Director Property and Projects explained that it was unclear but outlined the work which was ongoing with Anglian Water to identify where the supply came from and the route to the kiosks.  The Assistant Director undertook to meet with Councillor Beal to explore the issues raised but highlighted that disposal of waste was the responsibility of the tenant and that any potential solution would incur a cost to the kiosk operators.

In response to the issues raised by Councillor Beal, the Refuse and Recycling Manager explained that officers were always interested in evidenced photos which could identify who, where and when they were taken to identify any issues which required addressing.  Councillor Beal offered the photographs he had taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item CP55

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Chair invited Councillor Nash to present his report which had been circulated with the Agenda.

Councillor Nash drew the Panel’s attention to Page 43, the four recommendations set out below:

·         The UPCP be returned to the March 2013 wording with three amendments.  Subsequent amendments to that policy currently in force, whilst being negated will in fact be inherently satisfied by a proper appeal process.

·         Under bullet point 9, the ‘scattergun’ definition be narrowed in accordance with this report.

·         Under bullet point 12, new and relevant evidence/information can be presented at any time during the period in which an individual’s complaint is registered under the policy.

·         The Standards Committee be employed to administer appeals to the UPCP in a process commensurate with that of the Localism Act 2011 standards regime whereby both parties to the complaint are afforded the opportunity to present their evidence to the committee either personally or through a representative.  Additionally, it has already been established that the role description of the Council’s Localism Act 2011, section 28 Independent Person allows for that individual to be nominated to a role commensurate with the Localism Act 2011 standards regime and as such, the Independent Person can be approached by either or both of the parties to the complaint in order for the Independent Person to provide an independent opinion before the Standards Committee reaches its decision.

Councillor Nash commented that he was speaking about this policy as he had had probably exclusive experience of being on both sides of the policy.  Councillor Nash added that based on his experience to make it fair and useful policy for all concerned it was important to discuss those matters.  Most points were discussed and agreed on at the October 2019 Corporate Performance Panel meeting and it should hopefully not be too laborious to go through them again.

Councillor Nash thanked the Chair.

The Chair thanked Councillor Nash and invited the Monitoring Officer to address the Panel.

The Monitoring Officer commented that she understood that on the last occasion, advised legal advice had been requested on the proposals put forward by Councillor Nash.

The Monitoring Officer provided a brief summary on the legal opinion. 

The Monitoring Officer provided advice on whether the proposals could be accepted and changes made, except for a couple of areas which she would go through, the proposals could be accepted and that it was for Members to consider if whether they should be accepted and the reasons why. 

The Monitoring Officer outlined the points that she considered would definitely need to stay in the policy as set out below:

Local Government Ombudsmen recommendations in relation to a complaint that was previously made:

·         A requirement to set out a right for a review on a regular basis of the actual placement on the register.

·         Review of the policy.

The Monitoring Officer advised that the above two points were contained in the current policy and that as  ...  view the full minutes text for item CP56

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Senior Policy and Performance Officer presented the report which appended the revised Corporate Business Plan for the period to the next local elections in 2023 which would be considered by Cabinet on 16 November 2021.

The Panel was reminded that the six priority areas from the previously agreed plan had been retained and were set out at section 1.3 of the report, the detail beneath those priorities had been re-cast and that formed 12 objectives and 47 key initiatives.

The Senior Policy and Performance Officer explained that the Plan would focus the activities for the remainder of the Administrative term and progress updates would be presented to the Panel.

The Leader commented that he had nothing further to add but that he was available to answer any questions from the Panel.

The Leader responded to questions from Councillor Morley in relation to governance and communication of the Corporate Business Plan.  The Leader invited Councillor Morley and the Panel to forward wording in relation to governance and Cabinet would look at that.

The Leader gave the Panel assurance that the Corporate Business Plan would be communicated widely.

The Chair thanked the Senior Policy and Performance Officer for attending and presenting the report.

RESOLVED:  The Panel recommend to Cabinet the approval of the Corporate Business Plan.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects presented the report and explained that the Council set up a Member Major Projects Board (MMPB) during 2019 to provide more formal over-sight and monitoring of the delivery of the Council’s major projects and the programme of major projects.

It was highlighted that the operation and effectiveness of the Board had been hampered particularly by the Covid-19 pandemic, with many projects being stalled or delayed and Board meetings being cancelled.

The report sought to provide a greater degree of clarity in respect of the role of the MMPB and particularly its relationship with other existing Panels and Committees within the Council.  The revised Terms of Reference for the Member Major Projects Board were set out in the report.

Councillor Joyce referred to page 10, 2.1(b) operate on behalf of the Cabinet, … and commented that it naivety for the Labour Group to act on behalf of a Conservative Cabinet and added it should read operate on behalf of the Council.  The Monitoring Officer explained that as it was a sub-committee of Cabinet it could only act on behalf of the Cabinet and not Council but that the alternative was to have a free standing committee.

The Chair added that 2.1(b) would remain, in principle, operate on behalf of Cabinet and that it was proposed there would be three representatives from other political groups and asked if those representatives were allowed to be on scrutiny panels and would they be in effect be scrutinising themselves.  The Monitoring Officer advised that there would be a conflict so would not be able to sit on a scrutiny panel.  The Chair asked the Leader if this was considered a possible problem.  In  response, the Leader thanked the Assistant Director, Property and Projects and the Monitoring Officer for the report and that the Chair had raised a good question.

The Leader further added that Cabinet was trying to give some clarity because at the first meeting of the MMPB there were some issues around the role and remit of the Board and its importance to move forward.  The Leader provided context and provided an overview of importance of the development of projects, scrutiny and what was missing and why the MMPB was set up.

Councillor Morley commented that Cabinet was marking its own homework and asked how the scrutiny panels would be linked into the MMPB and enable to panels to carry out scrutiny effectively.  Councillor Morley added that a governance review was required across the board and was not content or convinced this was a step in the right direction and would look for some comfort that it would feed into the various scrutiny panels with relevant data and performance modules based upon project management methodology which was used throughout the country but may not be by this Administration.

The Chair commented understood why the council lost track of events because of the Pandemic but was  ...  view the full minutes text for item CP58

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Ombudsman Interactive Map was shared on the screen for the Panel to view.

Ask question at sifting in terms of breakdown of the previous year’s figures

The Chair referred to Appendix A and commented that it would be useful for the Panel to receive the breakdown by department of the 2019/2020 and would be included in the minutes of the meeting (the information requested is attached).

The Panel noted the annual report.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Panel identified the following item for the next meeting on 8 December 2021:

·         Council’s insurance tender.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Assistant Director, Central Services advised that the following item would be added to the 8 December meeting:

·         Draft Business Case for the Youth and Skills Pledge which was part of the Town Deal.

To note that the date of the next meeting of the Corporate Performance Panel will take place on 8 December 2021.

The next meeting of the Corporate Performance Panel will be held on 8 December 2021 at 4.30 pm in the Assembly Room, Town Hall, King’s Lynn, Norfolk.